CAT/C/58/D/607/2014 treatment. When considering whether his residence permit had lapsed, the board should have taken into consideration his need for such treatment.3 Issues and proceedings before the Committee 6.1 Before considering any claim submitted in a communication, the Committee against Torture must decide whether or not it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention, that the same matter has not been, and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 6.2 The Committee recalls that, in accordance with article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention, it shall not consider any communication from an individual unless it has ascertained that the individual has exhausted all available domestic remedies. The Committee notes that the State party has not contested that all available domestic remedies have been exhausted in the present case and concludes that it is not precluded from examining the communication by the requirements of article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention. 6.3 The Committee takes note of the State party’s argument that the complaint is insufficiently substantiated and therefore inadmissible. The Committee notes the complainant’s argument that article 3 of the Convention would be violated if he were to be deported to the Islamic Republic of Iran based on his past torture suffered in the 1980s and on the inability to obtain medical treatment required as a torture victim. The Committee notes, however, that the complainant has not provided the Committee with any information relating to the events occurred in the 1980s and how those events would still put him at a personal risk of torture in the Islamic Republic of Iran today. The Committee further notes that the complainant lived in the Islamic Republic of Iran for several years and that his short detention in 2009 was not of such nature as to suggest that, in case of return, he would be at risk of treatment contrary to article 3 of the Convention. As to the complainant’s argument relating to the refugee appeals board’s failure to undertake a medical examination to determine the need for him to follow a rehabilitation treatment for the torture he would have experienced in the 1980s, the Committee considers that this argument is of no relevance for the purpose of determining whether he would be at risk of being subjected to torture, at present, upon return to the Islamic Republic of Iran, in particular since he has not specified the required medical treatment related to the after-effects of torture that he was allegedly receiving in Denmark and would be unable to obtain in the Islamic Republic of Iran and in light of the fact that he voluntarily left Denmark and has presumably been without any such treatment since 2004. 6.4 The Committee concludes, in accordance with article 22 of the Convention and rule 107 (b) of its rules of procedure, that the complaint is manifestly unfounded. 7. The Committee against Torture therefore decides: (a) That the communication is inadmissible under article 22 of the Convention; (b) That the present decision shall be transmitted to the State party and to the complainant. 3 4 The complainant cites a decision where the RAB requested ex officio a torture medical examination of an applicant and based its decision not to deport him on the result of such examination. He notes that this was the correct procedure that should have been applied in his case.